One day after Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, proclaimed Google Fiber was "not an experiment," the Emerald City decided that it too wants in on some of that sweet gigabit speed.

On Thursday, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city reached an agreement with Gigabit Squared and the University of Washington to bring 1 Gbps connections, taking advantage of the city’s own underused fiber. Seattle abandoned its plan for a municipal network last summer. A connected city wireless network, which would obviously be slower, is also in the works.

“The plan will begin with a demonstration fiber project in twelve Seattle neighborhoods and includes wireless methods to deploy services more quickly to other areas,” the city wrote in an online statement.

Neither the city nor the company involved has released any information as to pricing or availability dates. Calls to the City of Seattle and Gigabit Squared were not immediately returned. However, the Gigabit Seattle website does say: “Our rates are yet to be finalized, but households and businesses should expect extremely competitive rates.”

Pricing, availability details to be determined

Details are scant, but Seattle did identify which neighborhoods would be targeted first. That list is:

Area 1: the University of Washington’s West Campus District, Area 2: South Lake Union, Area 3: First Hill/Capitol Hill/Central Area, Area 4: the University of Washington’s Metropolitan Tract in downtown Seattle, Area 5: the University of Washington’s Family Housing at Sand Point, Area 6: Northgate, Area 7: Volunteer Park Area, Area 8: Beacon Hill and SODO Light Rail Station and Areas 9-12: Mount Baker, Columbia City, Othello, and Rainier Beach.

But, while the Gainesville network apparently will offer a 50Mbps connection for $100—that’s a far cry from Google Fiber’s $70 for 1Gbps in Kansas City, Kansas. Still, as Ars found out first-hand last month, it may take some time before the real-world effects of such crazy speeds can be evenly felt throughout the network.

"In general, efforts like this and Google Fiber that create new models for bringing higher speed broadband to customers are good for the market and for disrupting what is primarily a duopoly in broadband access in most markets," Charles Golvin, a Forrester Research analyst, told Ars.

Well hell. I can see why their initial deployments are happening where they are, but I'd really like to see it come to my neighborhood (Greenwood). I gave up on CenturyLink ever turning up the FTTN service to the POPs in my area and switched to Comcast, which hasn't been bad, but still, the lack of competition sucks!

I live right on the edge of the Northgate area outlined of the map. I wish the coverage map they have on the website was higher resolution or a zoomable online map so I could confirm that my house is actually inside the area. High speed fiber internet would be a good consolation prize for living in one of Seattle's least hip neighborhoods (Northgate is known for... a mall surrounded by acres of parking lot).

Well, if it's anything like Seattle's other projects (520 bridge, viaduct tunnels) it will take two years of planning commissions, at least a year of Comcast fighting this in court, and another year of acquiring permits and assembling crews to actually install this stuff. Maybe they'll do their first few blocks of actual hookup in 2018 followed by panic as costs are finally shown to be underestimated and will result in bills of $200 per month for internet.

But that'll still be faster than the cable companies. (does anyone have that link to the article about billions given to support fiber in the late 90s/2000s for nationwide high speed?)

BigAssRat, in general, I have no problem with governments competing with private companies in areas where private companies, for whatever reason, suck.I certainly do have a problem with governments that grant private companies the opportunity to do business with little or no competition, and then don't adequately represent the interests of their constituents.

I'm not sure that really applies in this case. Over the past year, Seattle had been building out a municipal fiber network for its own purposes. At some point, there was the idea that this network might be extended and opened to business and residential customers since the private communications businesses here were so slow to improve broadband speeds and prices. For whatever reason, that city Internet utility wasn't happening. I have no doubt that the existing telecom interests here (Comcast, CenturyLink, Broadstripe, etc) brought all sorts of political pressure to bare, and even without it, Seattle can take a long damn time to get things done that should get done. On top of that, there was this little thing called the recession, which left the city struggling to preserve existing services.

Then, a couple of years ago, the new mayor decided that the city had a bunch of fiber in the ground that wasn't doing anyone any good, and launched a program to lease the fiber to private companies on a cost-recovery basis with the idea that it would allow to attract additional broadband providers. I don't think anyone is being given an exclusive, GigabitSquared is just the first company to make a successful proposal. I wouldn't not be surprised if they got priority consideration, given that they sound to be well connected, but I certainly hope that others will follow. I know that the Seattle prepared a serious proposal for the Google Fiber project which included use of the city's dark fiber, so there is reason to believe they still plan to evaluate other proposals.

(and so no, I don't think this is one of those situations where government's best role is to get out of the way)

Well hell. I can see why their initial deployments are happening where they are, but I'd really like to see it come to my neighborhood (Greenwood). I gave up on CenturyLink ever turning up the FTTN service to the POPs in my area and switched to Comcast, which hasn't been bad, but still, the lack of competition sucks!

As a former qwest customer, I feel bad for anyone still stuck with them. As much as I hated Comcast and their inability to get a bill right more than two months in a row, their connection just worked and was faster than Qwest's offerings. I once lived in a house which Qwest told me couldn't get dsl, even though the houses on each side had it and the basement apartment did too.

Am I the only one here that sees issues with governments competing with private companies versus promoting competition amongst by private companies? Why are they not bidding out or promoting gigabit build up by all ISP's in the Seattle area?

If we didn't have the same states/cities going to bed with these companies to lay the laws down in their favor then maybe, just maybe, the competition would be tighter and these companies would have to expand their own business models to improve their services.

I see the government consistently throwing in barriers to competition then they come running in like the knight in shining armor (at tax payers expense) to "fix" the problem.

I would much rather see barriers to competition being broken down in the private sector rathre than governments trying to compete with private companies. In the end private companies will rarely be able to compete as taxes can always be raised and forced upon people in order to gather necessary costs. That or the government simply runs debts that are unthinkable in a private arena.

Actually, Seattle is one of the few places that has forced competition in cable providers before now -- Comcast has Wave (formerly Broadstripe) as a competing cable/internet option.

It seems like providers are hesitant to just jump in and start building out expensive fiber networks, so I don't have the slightest problem with cities that go out and "recruit" new providers. In the current marketplace, that's probably the best option for getting a deal done.

Of course I'm way the hell out in unincorporated territory east of Redmond, so unfortunately, I won't see any of the benefits of this. And there's no way I'm moving to a new school district even for fiber to the home. Oh well.

Am I the only one here that sees issues with governments competing with private companies versus promoting competition amongst by private companies? Why are they not bidding out or promoting gigabit build up by all ISP's in the Seattle area?

If we didn't have the same states/cities going to bed with these companies to lay the laws down in their favor then maybe, just maybe, the competition would be tighter and these companies would have to expand their own business models to improve their services.

I see the government consistently throwing in barriers to competition then they come running in like the knight in shining armor (at tax payers expense) to "fix" the problem.

I would much rather see barriers to competition being broken down in the private sector rathre than governments trying to compete with private companies. In the end private companies will rarely be able to compete as taxes can always be raised and forced upon people in order to gather necessary costs. That or the government simply runs debts that are unthinkable in a private arena.

Actually, Seattle is one of the few places that has forced competition in cable providers before now -- Comcast has Wave (formerly Broadstripe) as a competing cable/internet option.

Where in Seattle ? I just tried West Seattle, Greenlake, and Maple Leaf/Northgate zipcodes and got nothing. I'd love to sign away from Comcast (even if just to be able to get their "new customer rates" again.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. http://www.seattle.gov/cable/franchises.htmWave* serves approximately 13,000 Seattle cable subscribers with cable television and Internet service and is the sole cable operator in the Central Area Franchise District. Wave also serves the Downtown and parts of Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill and Queen Anne.

EDIT2: Thanks mausium, so it's the sort of competition where anyone living on one side of town can pick Sprint and anyone on the other side of town can pick AT&T for home phones... and nobody else can play (well, aside from DSL and Qwest, which is like stringing tin cans together in this analogy). Carving up a tiny section of the city and calling it competition is pretty weak.

Where in Seattle ? I just tried West Seattle, Greenlake, and Maple Leaf/Northgate zipcodes and got nothing. I'd love to sign away from Comcast (even if just to be able to get their "new customer rates" again.

You don't have a choice. Some areas are forced Comcast, some are Broadstripe. Broadstripe are the lesser of the two options, more expensive, worse service.

Am I the only one here that sees issues with governments competing with private companies versus promoting competition amongst by private companies? Why are they not bidding out or promoting gigabit build up by all ISP's in the Seattle area?

If we didn't have the same states/cities going to bed with these companies to lay the laws down in their favor then maybe, just maybe, the competition would be tighter and these companies would have to expand their own business models to improve their services.

I see the government consistently throwing in barriers to competition then they come running in like the knight in shining armor (at tax payers expense) to "fix" the problem.

I would much rather see barriers to competition being broken down in the private sector rathre than governments trying to compete with private companies. In the end private companies will rarely be able to compete as taxes can always be raised and forced upon people in order to gather necessary costs. That or the government simply runs debts that are unthinkable in a private arena.

I'm sure I'll get down voted to high hell for this, but I actually think internet service ought to be run and regulated the way many states run and regulate utilities. I know we don't think of internet being vital like water or electricity, but I'm sure that in 10 to 15 years it really will be. A large digital divide in that time frame could be as detrimental as a lack of education in modern society.

The status quo of the current internet business climate, lack of real regulation, competition and lack of innovation has made American internet a joke among our first world counterparts. Big business isn't broken, it's working exactly as it should. Competitors have been priced out, territories have been pseudo-monopolized, and profits are up.

Am I the only one here that sees issues with governments competing with private companies versus promoting competition amongst by private companies? Why are they not bidding out or promoting gigabit build up by all ISP's in the Seattle area?

Internet is and should be regarded as a utility. What has been provided is substandard. I have zero problem with a city meeting the needs of its citizens when corporations refuse to do so.

Some background: King County attempted to partner with Seattle several years back with the previous mayor leading the charge. He held a Q&A about it, and at the Q&A a representative from Qwest made a statement that the city and county could spend all the money to build out a network, and that the day it was scheduled to go live they would get an injunction to block it. And they would then keep it tied up in court as long as they could. The mayor asked Qwest when they intended to bring fiber to the home for residents, the representative replied "We do not see any market for fiber services at this time and have no plans to provide it."

Fuck the ISP's. After witnessing this in person, I don't give a damn. The private sector is not only refusing to provide a service to a community full of high tech users, but they are actively attempting to block efforts of anyone else to do so.

Good for Seattle, I just hope they can survive the legal slog that is certain to follow.

I did think it was funny that Verizon put in FiOS up north, and the people in Qwest territory still had their old slow internet. Sure would be nice if Frontier would offer the higher FiOS speeds like Verizon does though. They max out at 35/35 and Verizon can get 150/65 and 300/65 now. Maybe Verizon will trade some more old copper in other states to get Frontier's FiOS customers back someday.

Well hell. I can see why their initial deployments are happening where they are, but I'd really like to see it come to my neighborhood (Greenwood). I gave up on CenturyLink ever turning up the FTTN service to the POPs in my area and switched to Comcast, which hasn't been bad, but still, the lack of competition sucks!

Am I the only one here that sees issues with governments competing with private companies versus promoting competition amongst by private companies? Why are they not bidding out or promoting gigabit build up by all ISP's in the Seattle area?

If we didn't have the same states/cities going to bed with these companies to lay the laws down in their favor then maybe, just maybe, the competition would be tighter and these companies would have to expand their own business models to improve their services.

I see the government consistently throwing in barriers to competition then they come running in like the knight in shining armor (at tax payers expense) to "fix" the problem.

I would much rather see barriers to competition being broken down in the private sector rathre than governments trying to compete with private companies. In the end private companies will rarely be able to compete as taxes can always be raised and forced upon people in order to gather necessary costs. That or the government simply runs debts that are unthinkable in a private arena.

Tax payers are already "paying" a lot of that money to these private companies to being with. Now even more with part of the recent stimulus money going to cities to pay for broadband expansion.

IMO, I think all internet infrastructure should be municipally owned and let all the ISPs connect and provide service over it. No more having just one provider in the majority of places, or having high prices for the [usually] shitty service because there was no competition.

And nothing for Queen Anne. I'm more than a little pissed that I live all of 5 minutes from downtown Seattle and my options are overpriced Comcast and overpriced, slow CenturyLink (Qwest).

I've had 1.5M DSL for years...because that was all they offered. I just noticed the other day they finally have 5M...for the same price I'm paying for 1.5. I'd check periodically, and they'd tease with their 20M fiber...which they don't have in my neighborhood.

Thanks to ChefJoe, though, now I see there might be an alternative, and maybe I'll finally get the chance to give CenturyLink the finger. I've been paying those assholes $85/month for the most basic landline they've got and slow-ass DSL for way too long.

What really pisses me off is Verizon was wiring Kirkland, a useless suburb northeast of the city, for fiber 4 years ago. Near as I can tell, most people from Kirkland only have the vaguest understanding of what these intarwebz even are.

For this project, though - South Lake Union? Can't Paul Allen spend his own goddamn money on anything? The city practically gave him the whole area, wrecked the transit budget for a pointless streetcar that has a maximum of 6 people riding it ever, near as I can tell, and now his playground gets fiber?

Agreed, You can definitely NOT include Atlanta on the list, aka the "wired city of the south".....that would be our northern cousins in Chattanooga 100 miles north of us. Comcast and these politicians wouldn't let Google and anyone come here to setup shop, that's a foregone conclusion.

I've been wondering what it would take to do 100Mbit+ internet service in Seattle on a block by block basis. I was imagining fiber to the block, a few WiFi access points on the utility poles in the alleys and then fiber to any house who wanted a more solid/faster connection. I kind of figured that delivering the fiber alone would be prohibitive, but eyeballing the city's fiber map, it looks like dark fiber isn't that far away...

You could set the thing up as an affiliate marketing scheme (which worked for some of the early DSL ISPs here). People who wanted high speed access could convince their neighbors in exchange for a discount or actual payments depending on how many people signed up...

Agreed, You can definitely NOT include Atlanta on the list, aka the "wired city of the south".....that would be our northern cousins in Chattanooga 100 miles north of us. Comcast and these politicians wouldn't let Google and anyone come here to setup shop, that's a foregone conclusion.

Hi Bux! If you look roughly NNW and squint hard enough, you might be able to see me here in Chattanooga surfing sweet internet on our municipal gigabit fiber. (I'm fully expecting a giant FU, which very well might be justified).

Agreed, You can definitely NOT include Atlanta on the list, aka the "wired city of the south".....that would be our northern cousins in Chattanooga 100 miles north of us. Comcast and these politicians wouldn't let Google and anyone come here to setup shop, that's a foregone conclusion.

Hi Bux! If you look roughly NNW and squint hard enough, you might be able to see me here in Chattanooga surfing sweet internet on our municipal gigabit fiber. (I'm fully expecting a giant FU, which very well might be justified).

Well, from about 80 miles to your SW here in Huntsville - FU!! I live just outside the city and I'm stuck with a T1 line.

We've got a Gigabit network rolling out island-wide in Jersey over the next couple years...capped at 50GB/month. No, that's not a typo. Doing the math, if you were to actually use the connection at that speed you would exceed your monthly ration of data in less than six minutes. Pointless.